The method used in the published attribution is very different from the corrected method described in Parts 5, 5a and 5b where all the coins in the hoard (A, B, C, D, E) were treated as affected by a monetary reform whose date was initially assumed to be unknown (see Part 5).

In the published method the hoard is treated as extending (i.e., it "overlaps") third-century hoards that contained coins of Ptolemies II, III and IV. The assumption was that the hoard, by "spanning the gap" between third-century hoards and later hoards, also contained coins of the next king, Ptolemy V.

As will be shown in Parts 6 (a and b), although the monetary reform reissued earlier coinage, new dates for coins A, B and C were not considered by the published attribution. Coins A, B, and C were simply assigned their original dates, i.e., pre-reform dates of Ptolemies II, III and IV. The post-reform coins D and E were then assigned to the later time of Ptolemy IV and to Ptolemy V.

Thus an initial assumption was taken that divided the coins into pre-reform (A, B, C) and post-reform (D and E) periods. Coins C, which hold the key (i.e., the countermark) to dating the monetary reform, were treated as if they were unmarked coins of Ptolemy IV. Similarly, coins A and B were also treated as if they were unaffected by the reform.

The correct method, used in Parts 5, 5a and 5b, determined the date of the reform from the new dateof the countermarks overstruck on coins C as well as from the known dates of post-reform coins (D and E). In contrast, the method used in the published attribution claims to determine the date of the reform from the original datesof the initial striking of coins C (see Part 6a) and from the original dates of pre-reform coins A and B (see Part 6b).